• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: 프라그마틱 플레이 delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. However, 프라그마틱 정품인증 [visit the next document] this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

In addition practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding errors. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to recruit participants in a timely manner. In addition, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published until 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a definite characteristic the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.